Well, you might hate Harry Potter books, but what JK Rowling has done to make kids actually want to read is monumental. She has created an appealing fantasy world, with entertaining plots and characters, but that isn't half of the "magic", excuse the pun. She has created a lust for the written word by the newest generation that not many other authors can do. That is her real accomplishment.

Now sit down.

A flap of the wings yesterday means big changes tomorrow.Let's work together to keep the present inevitable.

aidiore wrote:There was a time when Henry Miller in his crappy offcie at the postal service of U.S, haunted me with the irracional complications of a pretty simple life...and that was a good time....

then...from the darkest pit of nonsense...one british b...mmm...lady...rose and give us a new light...a new wind...and then you took that book into your hands...i took that book...and my eyes start bledding...that was because the childlish, bad written, characters horribly "constructed", history of a magician...

and dont get me started with that moron of dan brown...my FSM those books sucks...

What nonsense. To begin with, you're spending time and effort contrasting a children's series with very adult books published what, 70-80 years ago? They have absolutely nothing in common, yet you criticize one for not being the other. Might as well criticize Miller for not making hundreds of thousands of children more interested in reading, it makes as much sense.

The Harry Potter books, especially the first few, did what they were intended to do very very well. They got children away from the television and nose deep in a novel, while illustrating values like the importance of choosing good friends and working hard when you need to. On top of that, they are extremely entertaining as well as profitable (and yes, profitable is a virtue).

As if your ridiculous apples and oranges comparison wasn't enough, you toss in a grapefruit (Dan Brown) for good measure.

WelshRarePasta wrote:On the TV front, I'd nominate Dexter and Carnivale as literary-quality television. There are others, but those two shows really impress me... and I'll never forgive the bastards for cancelling Carnivale ;(

You have very odd tastes. I watch both those shows, and enjoyed Dexter enough to read the books (Only read the 1st 2, the 3rd sucks ass) but I'd hardly call it literature. Carnivale kept me watching for some reason I don't fully understand, but all in all I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

If I were picking a tv/film to call literature, I'd go with Casablanca and The Shawshank Redemption.

I believe it's time for mankind to set aside the crutch of religion and embrace morality born of reason and truth. Those crutches have long since proven treacherous when the ground gets slippery.

Detective TurtleHolmes wrote:Well, you might hate Harry Potter books, but what JK Rowling has done to make kids actually want to read is monumental. She has created an appealing fantasy world, with entertaining plots and characters, but that isn't half of the "magic", excuse the pun. She has created a lust for the written word by the newest generation that not many other authors can do. That is her real accomplishment.

Now sit down.

QFT. If I hadn't recieved a copy of the fist two Harry Potter books as a child, I woud probably not be the same person I am today.

The thin line between genius and insanity is less of a border than a union.

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."--Pope John Paul II

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.-Albert Einstein

Rainswept wrote:You have very odd tastes. I watch both those shows, and enjoyed Dexter enough to read the books (Only read the 1st 2, the 3rd sucks ass) but I'd hardly call it literature. Carnivale kept me watching for some reason I don't fully understand, but all in all I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

If I were picking a tv/film to call literature, I'd go with Casablanca and The Shawshank Redemption.

Well, therein lies the beauty of different tastes... what appeals to me about both Dexter and Carnivale is the play on justice, morality, right and wrong. I find both shows to be very thought-provoking, interesting, well-acted, and extremely well written. Haven't read the books, might check them out. As for Casablanca and Shawshank, both excellent films, but didn't you just accuse someone of comparing apples and oranges?

"Are you saying," Brine interrupted, "that the human race was created to irritate Satan?""That is correct. Jehovah is infinite in his snottiness."Brine reflected on this for a moment and regretted that he had not become a criminal at an early age. --Practical Demonkeeping

Think of all the episodic novels of the 19th C. that are now canonized as 'literature' (Dickens, MacDonald, and Scott all come to mind), and it becomes more easy to wrap your mind around. I haven't seen Deadwood, but from what I've heard and read seems like that show in particular would be an excellent candidate for the status of literature-like TV. What makes you feel differently (i.e., I'm curious as to how you'd define literature).

"Are you saying," Brine interrupted, "that the human race was created to irritate Satan?""That is correct. Jehovah is infinite in his snottiness."Brine reflected on this for a moment and regretted that he had not become a criminal at an early age. --Practical Demonkeeping

So does this mean I should start a rant about how all books written before 1950 "suck" because they aren't up to my personal taste?

“We are often hesitant to look at other faiths or to examine our own critically because we feel that, in doing so, we are being disloyal to our own deeply felt convictions. ... And yet our beliefs are not worth very much if they cannot stand up to any scrutiny.” -- James Livingston.

If you do, do it in another thread! I'm enjoying the comments in this one and don't want to see it relentlessly hijacked for no good purpose. Plus, I'm 99.999% certain that such a thread would be a complete waste of time and someone as intelligent as yourself couldn't be serious in suggesting it! So Waw, what do you think of Dan Brown, Harry Potter, or the literary aspirations of modern Television programming in the United States?

"Are you saying," Brine interrupted, "that the human race was created to irritate Satan?""That is correct. Jehovah is infinite in his snottiness."Brine reflected on this for a moment and regretted that he had not become a criminal at an early age. --Practical Demonkeeping

I personally loved reading all of Dan Brown's books, as well as the entire Harry Potter series. I think they are great books that entice the reader to finish them as soon as possible.

I think both authors did a good job at entertaining the reader and rejuvenating a love of reading among many individuals.

As for television programming, I personally stopped watching it completely. I did enjoy it for its entertainment value but never cared enough to dissect it for any foils, foreshadowing, etc (although I can easily spot it now that I am older).

“We are often hesitant to look at other faiths or to examine our own critically because we feel that, in doing so, we are being disloyal to our own deeply felt convictions. ... And yet our beliefs are not worth very much if they cannot stand up to any scrutiny.” -- James Livingston.

Well, if you like being entertained intelligently, I'd suggest renting Carnivale (the bastards cancelled it for being 'weird and unpopular'). Then it will be on DVD, not TV, so you won't have to defend watching it... and it's pretty much like an episodic film anyways!

"Are you saying," Brine interrupted, "that the human race was created to irritate Satan?""That is correct. Jehovah is infinite in his snottiness."Brine reflected on this for a moment and regretted that he had not become a criminal at an early age. --Practical Demonkeeping

I should probably clear up my earlier comment. Sorry. I have a bit of animosity towards that which is extraordinarily popular, so that sometimes colors my statements. My definition of literature is "that which will go down in history as either an incredible work, or a cultural landmark." By this definition, Harry Potter is literature. I seriously don't think that you could say that about Brown's books.

What pisses me off is that graphic novels and comics aren't really considered literature. Watchmen, American Born Chinese, Transmetropolitan, Strangers In Paradise, and Sandman are all mindblowing, and I would consider all of them to be better than The Great Gatsby

Vote Pieces for Pope! She didn't buy me off with the funny hat, I swear!... She made me a cardinal.

I hear you on the graphic novels part. I used to have a fairly strongly-held hatred of 'comic books,' and would fight to the intellectual death with anyone suggesting they might have any value, far less literary. A good friend of mine called my bluff and asked me if I'd actually read any (which I really hadn't), and made a $100 bet that The Sandman would change my mind. I lost the bet and found my favorite author. Can't say I sit down and read old Superman comics form the 50s for fun, but I sure do love anything by Gaiman or Alan Moore.

"Are you saying," Brine interrupted, "that the human race was created to irritate Satan?""That is correct. Jehovah is infinite in his snottiness."Brine reflected on this for a moment and regretted that he had not become a criminal at an early age. --Practical Demonkeeping

[quote="fueledbycoffee"]I should probably clear up my earlier comment. Sorry. I have a bit of animosity towards that which is extraordinarily popular, so that sometimes colors my statements. [quote]

Me too. In fact, I refused to read Harry Potter for seven years because it was so trendy. Once I got to the point where I no longer encountered anyone reading book 7 on the subway, that's when I finally agreed to read the series.

True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill

fueledbycoffee wrote:I should probably clear up my earlier comment. Sorry. I have a bit of animosity towards that which is extraordinarily popular, so that sometimes colors my statements.

Me too. In fact, I refused to read Harry Potter for seven years because it was so trendy. Once I got to the point where I no longer encountered anyone reading book 7 on the subway, that's when I finally agreed to read the series.

I used to have some of those feelings. I refused to watch Forrest Gump for a long time because of that, then when I watched it and loved it, I felt like an ass and did my best to eliminate that quality from myself.

It's the same thing that causes people to hate certain sports teams/stars. Wander through Boston you'll see as many "I hate the Yankees" things as you do support for the home team.

I believe it's time for mankind to set aside the crutch of religion and embrace morality born of reason and truth. Those crutches have long since proven treacherous when the ground gets slippery.

I think it's quite natural to feel that way about 'Over Hyped' books and films. I still haven't read any Harry Potter Books or watched Forrest Gump. I like the Harry Potter films though but I will not be reading The Da Vinci Code, even though someone gave me it for Christmas!

The smoke wafted gently in the breeze across the poop deck and all seemed right in the world.